Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 19, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Microsoft Defender for Cloud
Ranking in Container Security
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
79
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (7th), Container Management (9th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (1st), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (4th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (4th), Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) (4th), Microsoft Security Suite (8th), Compliance Management (5th), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (2nd)
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Se...
Ranking in Container Security
22nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Container Security category, the mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is 6.6%, down from 7.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is 2.2%, down from 2.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Container Security Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Microsoft Defender for Cloud6.6%
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes2.2%
Other91.2%
Container Security
 

Featured Reviews

Vibhor Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
A single tool for complete visibility and addressing security gaps
Currently, issues are structured in Microsoft Defender for Cloud at severity levels of high, critical, or warning, but these severity levels are not always right. For example, Microsoft might consider a port being open as critical, but that might not be the case for our company. Similarly, it might suggest closing some management ports, but you might need them to be able to log in, so the severity levels for certain things can be improved. Even though Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides a way to temporarily disable certain alerts or notifications without affecting our security score, it would be better to have more granularized control over these recommendations. Currently, we cannot even disable certain alerts or notifications. There should be an automated mechanism to design Azure policies based on the recommendations, possibly with AI integration. Instead of an engineer having to write a policy to fix security gaps, which is very time-consuming, there should be an inbuilt capability to auto-remediate everything and have proper control in place. Additionally, enabling Defender for Cloud at the resource group level, rather than only at the subscription level, would be beneficial.
Daniel Stevens - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers easy management and container connection with HTTPS, but the support needs to improve
I have experience with the solution's setup in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and our company has assisted in the development of a cluster in a research department, but we didn't start from scratch because we have IT professionals who have installed Kubernetes across 12 nodes of a cluster and a new environment can be created for a new platform. I also had another setup experience of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes in Portugal where I had to implement the solution in a cluster of 22 computer servers, which was completed with assistance from the IT department of the company. The initial setup process of the solution can be considered as difficult. The setup process involves using the permissions, subnets and range of IPs, which makes it complex. Deploying Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes takes around eight to ten hours for new clusters. The solution's deployment can be divided into three parts. The first part involves OpenStack, where the cluster's resources need to be identified. The second part involves virtualizing assets and identifying other physical assets, for which OpenStack, Kubernetes, or OpenShift are used. The third part of the deployment involves dividing the networks into subnetworks and implementing automation to deploy the microservices using Helm. The number of professionals required for the solution's deployment depends upon the presence of automated scripts. Ideally, two or three professionals are required to set up Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution is quite good and addresses many security gaps."
"It offers virus management and addresses threats such as viruses, worms, spyware, and other critical security concerns."
"The solution is very easy to deploy."
"It has seamless integration with any of the services I mentioned, on Azure, such as IaaS platforms, virtual machines, applications, or databases, because it's an in-house product from Microsoft within the Azure ecosystem."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud has made our environment more secure."
"The solution's robust security posture is the most valuable feature."
"The scalability of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is very good."
"I would like to see more connectors and plugins with other platforms."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
"The technical support is good."
"One of the most valuable features I found was the ability of this solution to map the network and show you the communication between your containers and your different nodes."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"The most beneficial security feature of the product revolves around the areas of vulnerability and configuration."
 

Cons

"An area where Microsoft Defender for Cloud could be improved is in getting away from having multiple menus that do the same thing, which seems imposing when looking at it."
"Integration into other third-party products, particularly those from tier three vendors like ManageEngine and Hexcode, has proven difficult."
"We would like to have better transparency as to how the security score is calculated because as it is now, it is difficult to understand."
"I would like to have the ability to customize executive reporting."
"The customer service at Microsoft has room for improvement. The first line of support is not technically adept and often requires engaging higher-level technicians to resolve issues."
"However, some Copilot features aren't available in the GCP environment. This is something we hope will be addressed in the future."
"Customer service and support from Microsoft are very poor. Even for high-severity cases, response or resolution time can extend to three or four weeks."
"I would rate Microsoft Defender for Cloud a six out of 10 due to its lack of necessary features to operate as a standalone solution."
"The deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"The testing process could be improved."
"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"The support and specifications need to be up to date for the cluster technologies"
"I do see that some features associated with the IAST part are not included in the tool, making it an area where improvements are required."
"The documentation about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security available online is very limited... So it's very limited to the documentation."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I'm not privy to that information, but I know it's probably close to a million dollars a year."
"Pricing is a consideration, but we strive to keep costs low by enabling only necessary services."
"The pricing and licensing of Microsoft Defender for Cloud have been good for us. We appreciate the licensing approach based on employee count rather than a big enterprise license."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud is pricey, especially for Kubernetes clusters."
"While we pay for any additional features, the pricing seems competitive, though I am not involved in the specific cost details."
"Azure Defender is a bit pricey. The price could be lower."
"The licensing is straightforward but can become expensive if you cover everything. You must balance the cost against the importance of what needs covering."
"There is a helpful cost-reducing option that allows you to integrate production subscriptions with non-production subscriptions."
"The price of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is better than Palo Alto Prisma."
"Red Hat offers two pricing options for their solution: a separate price, and a bundled price under the OpenShift Platform Plus."
"It's a costly solution"
"The pricing model is moderate, meaning it is not very expensive."
"We purchase a yearly basis license for the solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Security solutions are best for your needs.
872,029 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
28%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business26
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise45
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise4
 

Questions from the Community

How is Prisma Cloud vs Azure Security Center for security?
Azure Security Center is very easy to use, integrates well, and gives very good visibility on what is happening across your ecosystem. It also has great remote workforce capabilities and supports a...
What do you like most about Microsoft Defender for Cloud?
The entire Defender Suite is tightly coupled, integrated, and collaborative.
What do you like most about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes?
I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security.
What needs improvement with Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes?
From an improvement perspective, I would like to create new policies in the tool, especially if it is deployed for the prevention part, but currently, we need to do it manually. I hear that Palo Al...
What is your primary use case for Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes?
I use the solution in my company for vulnerability management, configuration management, compliance, safety handling, and everything else.
 

Also Known As

Microsoft Azure Security Center, Azure Security Center, Microsoft ASC, Azure Defender
StackRox
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft Defender for Cloud is trusted by companies such as ASOS, Vatenfall, SWC Technology Partners, and more.
City National Bank, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
872,029 professionals have used our research since 2012.